\n
![](\"https:\/\/content.fortune.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/GettyImages-1233956223-e1709400663354.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Lawyers for a\u00a0Tesla Inc.<\/a>\u00a0investor who persuaded a judge to throw out\u00a0Elon Musk\u2019s $55.8 billion pay package are making an unusual request to have their legal fees paid in the form of about $6 billion of stock in the electric-car maker.<\/p>\n Attorneys for the Tesla<\/a> investor who challenged Musk\u2019s executive-compensation award \u2013 the largest ever given to a corporate titan \u2013 filed the request Friday in Delaware state court.<\/p>\n The attorneys for shareholder Richard Tornetta argued in a court filing they deserve more than 29 million Tesla shares. They explained why they prefer stock to cash.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are prepared to \u2018eat our cooking,\u2019\u201d according to the filing. \u201cThis structure has the benefit of linking the award directly to the benefit created and avoids taking even one cent from the Tesla balance sheet to pay fees. It is also tax-deductible by Tesla.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk\u00a0responded<\/a>\u00a0late Friday on X<\/a>, his social-media platform: \u201cThe lawyers who did nothing but damage Tesla want $6 billion,\u201d he wrote. \u201cCriminal.\u201d<\/p>\n Austin-based Tesla, with a $645 billion valuation, is among the largest companies in the world by market cap.<\/p>\n Ann Lipton<\/a>, a corporate law professor at Tulane University, said it\u2019s the largest attorney fee request she\u2019s ever heard of.<\/p>\n \u201cNow, to be fair, the case involved the largest compensation award ever to an executive,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Lipton had her own theory for why the lawyers prefer stock.<\/p>\n \u201cI assume the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys figured if they sought $6 billion in cash in fees it could cripple Tesla,\u201d she said. \u201cSince the case involved a stock award to Musk, they thought it would be appropriate to ask for the fee in shares so it wouldn\u2019t be as rough for Tesla shareholders. That makes a lot of sense to me.\u201d<\/p>\n Because Tornetta brought the case on behalf of shareholders, about 267 million shares that were promised to Musk in his pay plan will be returned to Tesla as a result of the investor\u2019s victory, according to the filing.<\/p>\n The filing is the latest step toward finalizing Delaware Chancery Court Chief Judge\u00a0Kathaleen St. J. McCormick\u2019s conclusion that Tesla directors gave Musk the excessive compensation plan because they were handcuffed by conflicts of interest. The judge also faulted Tesla\u2019s public disclosure about the pay package.<\/p>\n Once McCormick<\/a> enters a final judgment in the case, Musk then has 30 days to decide whether to appeal her ruling under Delaware law.<\/p>\n Musk has signaled to Tesla\u2019s board that he\u2019d like to arrange another massive stock award for him, years after he sold a significant chunk of his shares in the company to acquire the social-media company once-known as Twitter.<\/p>\n The billionaire has said he is \u201cuncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control.\u201d Some experts have questioned whether Musk\u2019s focus on Tesla will be weakened without another super-sized pay package. Tesla directors cited that fear in approving the package that McCormick voided in January.<\/p>\n Musk also has moved all his companies except Tesla out of Delaware for incorporation purposes in the wake of McCormick\u2019s ruling. He\u2019s encouraged other business owners to shift their incorporations out of the state, which is still the corporate home to more than 70% of Fortune 500 companies.<\/p>\n The case is Tornetta v. Musk, 2018-0408, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington).<\/p>\n \u2014 With assistance from Kelly Gilblom<\/em><\/p>\n\nSubscribe to the Eye on AI newsletter to stay abreast of how AI is shaping the future of business. Sign up<\/a> for free.<\/div>\n